How many slam titles is enough?

After watching Serena win the women's title over the weekend, I began to wonder if there's a point at which you cease to derive the same enjoyment out of winning slams as you did the first time you won one (yes, I'm applying economic theory to tennis) lol. If so, what's the number? So I ask you TW brethren, how many slams is enough? Is it purely winning 1? All 4? Chasing the all-time slams record? I guess I'm just fascinated by the idea of these individuals continually taking on the monumental task of winning one slam, over and over again, given the grind of it all, while seeming to be continually hungry for more slams. Its gotta be difficult to get up for a slam if you've won all 4 already.

*Maybe tennis just self-selects the type of individual that would maniacally chase after as many as possible.

I don't think there is such things as too many slams, records are always made to be broken so these guys will try to make the most of it considering that (maybe if Sampras knew his record would get broken through foreseeing, he'd stay a bit longer?)

One is important to separate yourself from the pack.
Defending a title is important too, so 2 is a good number.
All four slams is a big target. Wasn't enough to keep Sampras going for another six months till the FO, I guess he knew it wasn't going to happen. However some people might die trying
Then holding all four at once
Then four in a season.
Then going for one more than anyone else at a particular slam. Getting more FOs than Nadal might be a bit of an ask.

By that time you will be past your best and just concentrating on the slams and whatever else the governing body insists you play.

I guess there is a theoretical maximum for singles, maybe Becker's age to Nadal's last FO, what is that 10 years? 40 slams won at rate of 60% so 24 in total. 20 would be the superman bar.

Would anyone who won AO WO USO just focus on clay to get the set? Probably not but might tweak their game a bit and arrange their year around it.

The most important number is one. Roddick had his disappointments but his one USO is more than most will ever achieve.

I don't think it's a matter of being tired of winner, more like deciding if the win is worth the work you have to put in. For your first slam you're willing to work as hard as you need to. After you have slams you start thinking "I already need thus, too much work" Why put in the work when you already won it.

I don't think there is such things as too many slams, records are always made to be broken so these guys will try to make the most of it considering that (maybe if Sampras knew his record would get broken through foreseeing, he'd stay a bit longer?)

Click to expand...

Well I doubt Sampras thought his record would be broken not even a decade later. I mean every generation has its greats, it just so happened the next generation had arguably the greatest player ever, so it was just unfortunate for Sampras in that regard. I'm sure every player thinks that their record will be broken eventually.

In Queen Serena's case, I think she is just as motivated now as when she started. In her career she has missed 10 majors so far, due to injuries and other personal problems. I hope she remains healthy to compensate for those 10 lost opportunities.